Em seg., 18 de jul. de 2022 às 19:54, Richard Purdie <
richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org> escreveu:

> On Mon, 2022-07-18 at 18:41 -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> > Em seg., 18 de jul. de 2022 às 18:18, Richard Purdie
> > <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org> escreveu:
> > > > It does, indeed, but it doesn't seem related to this PR.
> > > >
> > > > Do you know if this has worked?
> > > >
> > > > I am asking as I did all development and testing using SDKMACHINE
> > > > ?=
> > > > 'x86_64' and even MACHINE ?= 'qemuarm64' worked just fine.
> > > > However,
> > > > looking at some of the logs above, it seems it is using an
> > > > SDKMACHINE
> > > > as i686, so this appears as a different issue for me.
> > > >
> > >
> > > rust-cross-canadian hasn't officially worked properly or been
> > > supported. In assessing whether a patch is better or worse, it is
> > > useful to know which cases regress and which improve. I had hoped
> > > this
> > > list of failures would be smaller. I will admit I don't know
> > > whether
> > > this is better or worse than before so I guess that is the next
> > > thing I
> > > need to determine.
> > >
> >
> >
> > I told you. I tried SDKMACHINE as x86_64 on a x86_64 host and this
> > worked.
> >
> > > What we don't know right now is which combinations work and which
> > > don't
> > > so we can't even tell people what is expected to work and what
> > > isn't/doesn't :(
> > >
> >
> >
> > See above.
> >
> > > I mentioned this report in case someone can work out the pattern,
> > > or
> > > even better, understand what a fix looks like...
> > >
> >
> >
> > I am not familiar enough to Rust boostrap to help here but we spent a
> > lot of time to get the SDK working and I think this is a step on the
> > right direction, at least.
>
> Thanks, I do appreciate the patches. I think we've talked cross
> purposes as I did report my aarch64 test case issue previously and I
> thought this series was to attempt to fix things so the recipe did work
> generically.
>

I had it fixed to SDKMACHINE as x86_64 on a x86_64. I didn't realise it was
using a different SDKMACHINE.

If I merge this to fix x86_64, I think people will then just ignore the
> other cases and things will remain broken there which worries me a lot
> and means we can't generically enable rust SDKs for the project and
> gain autobuilder testing to spot future regressions.
>

I understand.


> Obviously you want your use case fixed though. I will try and evaluate
> things a bit more tomorrow. What I don't want to do is merge a fix
> which then makes it harder to get things correctly done in future
> though, particularly when I know there will be an instant backport
> request to an LTS as soon as I accept it for master.
>

In fact I need patch 1/2 as this fixes our use case. We worked on 2/2 (this
patch) for completeness.


> We never should have accepted these rust cross-canadian recipes at all
> as they are just broken :(.
>

Agreed.

-- 
Otavio Salvador                             O.S. Systems
http://www.ossystems.com.br        http://code.ossystems.com.br
Mobile: +55 (53) 9 9981-7854          Mobile: +1 (347) 903-9750